Fort Lauderdale's NE 13 Street to lose 2 lanes

Figure 1 - Example of a Complete Street concept

 

By Michael Turnbell Sun Sentinel

September 15, 2015

 

One of the city's major east-west roads is going on a diet next year.

Officials want to transform a four-lane stretch of Northeast 13th Street in the Middle River Terrace neighborhood with on-street parking, bike lanes and improved crosswalks.

To do so means drivers will lose a through lane in each direction between Northeast Fourth and Ninth avenues, just west of the Florida East Coast Railway tracks.

Construction is set to begin in July 2016 and will take about a year to complete.

A public meeting is set for Wednesday to present concepts for the $2 million project.

The city wants to spur economic development, slow speeding traffic and create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere similar to what was done on a stretch of Sistrunk Boulevard, which was redesigned with narrower lanes and wider sidewalks.

The project is part of what's called Complete Streets, a national program that rebuilds or retrofits roads to make it easier for people to cross the street and walk to shops, ride their bikes to work or catch a bus.

The city tested the concept for about a week in May by closing off lanes with plastic poles between Dixie Highway and the railroad tracks.

City planner Karen Mendrala said the test slowed traffic and made it easier for pedestrians to cross the street. "Residents were seen biking and skating within the protected outer lane," she said.

Mendrala said businesses near the railroad tracks want the lane reductions extended east of Northeast Ninth Avenue. The city is reviewing whether that's possible with the current funding.

Figure 2 - Example of a Complete Street Concept

Making the lane reductions permanent isn't sitting well with some drivers who use the road as a speedy alternative to congested Sunrise Boulevard a few blocks to the south. The road, which runs from U.S. 1 to Powerline Road, carries about 14,000 vehicles a day.

"The sudden appearance of traffic cones that were apparently delineating new curb installations was quite confusing," said Chris Lovell, of Fort Lauderdale. "Not one person I talked to…felt it was a good idea to limit traffic on such an important cross street for local residents."

But Tim Smith, a former city commissioner and president of the 13^th Street Alliance, said the project can't come soon enough.

"It's sure to transform the business portion of 13th from a dangerous, ugly roadway, devoid of almost any community shopping, to just the opposite," Smith said. "Most of those opposing don't want traffic slowed. But to most of us, that's the objective."

Northeast 13th Street was originally a two-lane road but was widened to four lanes in the mid-1970s. Today, it's home to a mix of middle and lower-middle class homes and stores, churches, parking lots and gas stations. Earlier this year, Warsaw Coffee Co., a Seattle-style industrial chic coffeehouse, opened, drawing big crowds.

Activists along 13th Street have been pressing to beautify the area for years.

Several years ago, Fort Lauderdale placed three African statues along Northeast 13th Street as part of a long-sought revitalization effort.

mturnbell@tribpub.com, 954-356-4155, Twitter @MikeTurnpike, Facebook at SunSentinel.com/concreteideas

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-lauderdale-13th-street-diet-20150915-story.html

 

 

 

Getting nowhere fast: How having more stuff is eating up all the gains from being more efficient

Our homes are way more efficient than they used to be, but we're using more energy per capita.

By: Lloyd Alter

Fri, Feb 13, 2015

 

Our houses are better (but bigger), and we keep burning more energy. (Graphic: U.S. Energy Information Administration)

 

It’s really quite remarkable, how much more energy-efficient everything is these days. Our houses are built to higher standards; our fridges use a fraction of the power they used to, our cars get better mileage — yet we are using more energy per capita than we ever have. 

 

I am loath to bring up good old Stanley Jevons here. His theory, also known as the rebound effect, was that if things become more efficient, we use more of them. Even as our houses get more efficient, they get bigger and we fill them with more stuff, pretty much negating the efficiency gains. A few years back the Jevons Paradox became the darling of climate skeptics and others who wanted to kill the drive towards greater efficiency, so I am on dangerous ground here. However it just keeps coming up again and I fear they might be right. Amory Lovins argued against the point years ago using the fridge as an example:

After all, there is a maximum size to the refrigerator you can easily put in a kitchen and a limit to the number of refrigerators you need in your house. In short, improvements in efficiency have greatly outpaced our need for more and larger fridges.

And we know what happened there — fridges just got bigger and bigger.

 

Mmmm. Pie charts. (Graphic: Energy Information Administration)

 

Have a look at these pie charts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Between 1993 and 2009, our heating and cooling used up less of our power, while our appliances, electronics and lighting went up from 24 percent to 34.6 percent of our overall consumption, and the total amount of energy used in a home went up. Flat screen TVs are more efficient than the old ones, but they got BIG. In fact, everything got big. The EIA notes the results of its recent survey:

Data show that newer homes were more likely than older homes to have dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and two or more refrigerators. Newer homes, with their larger square footage, have more computers, TVs, and TV peripherals such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video game systems. In total, newer homes consumed about 18% more energy on average in 2009 for appliances, electronics, and lighting than older homes.

 

Stuff — more and more stuff. (Photo: Energy Information Administration)

 

Then, as Matt Power of Green Builder Media points out, we keep adding gadget after gadget, most of which are sucking power in standby mode. We buy wireless WiFi speakers instead of wiring them into a stereo that has a power switch. We buy cordless phones that are plugged into the wall as well as the phone outlet, TVs that most people don’t even realize have an on/off switch because they use the remote, computers that we leave on because booting up takes so long. Just at my desk right now I have nine devices running or charging, and I consider myself a minimalist about electronics.

 

And with the new Internet of Things and smart houses, it's just going to get worse. Every one of these little smart plugs is drawing electricity to keep that little receiver going so that it can listen for your instructions. It’s fascinating that so many of these new smart technologies are marketed as money and energy savers, yet they are all little energy sucks on their own. And it all adds up. 

 

I see Stanley Jevons everywhere these days, even in the mens’ room, where there are now LED TVs serving ads over the urinals. There are LED-encrusted wallpapers and even snowsuits. LEDs are consuming milliamps in ways that nobody ever expected. As the data show, we manage to just keep using more energy to power more stuff in ways we just can’t even imagine.

 

It is a difficult subject for all of us promoting energy-efficiency; you start to ask yourself, what’s the point? All of the savings are lost to house size, air conditioning and gadgets. 

 

It’s one of the reasons for promoting the whole minimalist, live-with-less movement; we're going to need a real cultural change if we're going to make any real difference in our consumption of energy and our resultant carbon footprint. Martin Holladay of Green Building Advisor, discussing the same issue a few years ago, suggested this:

I'm calling for the voluntary adoption of a simpler lifestyle: one with less work, fewer possessions, and more leisure time. A graceful transition to such a lifestyle would be the greatest possible gift to our children and grandchildren.

At the time I thought he was dreaming; now I think he was right.

 

And to make you feel better after this totally depressing post, here's a great video of a totally wasteful and pointless but very beautiful LED-encrusted snowsuit.

 

https://vimeo.com/108679294 AFTERGLOW - Lightsuit Segment from Sweetgrass Productions on Vimeo

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/remodeling-design/stories/getting-nowhere-fast-how-having-more-stuff-is-eating-up-all-the#ixzz3S0Rxxysv

 

 

 

 

READY TO RE-WEAR

A couple of great websites to help you with your spring cleaning!  -Gene

 

Green Biz

Ready to Re-Wear

Start-ups are making it easier to nab secondhand style

By Avital Andrews

 

ThredUp sends you this bag—you fill it and send it back for free. When your clothes sell, you make money.

 

In 2009, James Reinhart was standing in his closet. It was full of clothes, but he didn't feel like wearing any of them. 

That moment was the beginning of ThredUp, a fashion-consignment website with almost 1 million customers and more than $48 million in backing from financiers, including Trinity Ventures, which helped Starbucks get going. Basically, it's a middleman for people looking to buy or sell high-quality used clothes—and one of a range of start-ups catering to the swelling wave of people taking to the cloud to buy, sell, give, get, or rent secondhand apparel.

Considering that the average American throws away 68 pounds of textiles each year, and that a single cotton T-shirt takes 700 gallons of water to produce, and that 80 percent of items Americans own get used less than once a month, these types of sites are looking increasingly attractive to families concerned about both their environmental impact and their finances.  

To get started on ThredUp, you order a free polka-dot plastic bag, fill it with clothes you're tired of, and send it back (also for free). ThredUp's employees sift through your castoffs, post what's good—you get part of the proceeds when one of your pieces sells—and send the rest to a fabric recycler. Though Reinhart started ThredUp primarily to make money, his burgeoning business has diverted more than 1.5 million pounds of textiles from landfills since 2012.  

Yerdle works a bit differently: It helps people give away things—clothes, mostly—that they no longer want. It's free to claim a "Yerdled" item, except that you have to pay a nominal shipping fee (usually $2), and credits get deducted from your account—credits you earn by listing your own stuff to give. Items posted on Yerdle are often gone within 30 minutes. 

"People have gotten super-good at buying things: It's so easy to go to Amazon and order, or to go to Walmart and see what's on sale," says Rachel Barge, a Yerdle spokesperson. "But there's not a good way to get value from those items after you've bought them—you can't sell them for much on Craigslist or eBay." 

Yerdle was cofounded by Adam Werbach, a former Sierra Club president. Its mission is to put the $5 trillion worth of durable goods gathering dust in closets and garages to use. At 150,000 users, the Yerdle community is still relatively small. But it's catching on. 

"People tell us, 'I used to shop at Target seven days a week, but now I use Yerdle and I'm addicted,'" says Barge. "They're also really excited about giving things away. And you're rewarded for this behavior. We call it a 'currency of generosity.'" 

You don't have to be an altruist to use Rent the Runway, a company whose more than 50,000 designer dresses are available to rent for a fraction of what they'd cost to purchase.

Buying a new Badgley Mischka sheath, for example, will strip you of $940, even though you might wear it only once or twice. Via Rent the Runway, you can have it for four days for $45, plus modest shipping and insurance fees. 

"We've entered a world of fast fashion where you buy a lot of clothes and they don't last all that long," Barge says. "If we can share our fashion, it's great for the planet. If you want a new outfit, new-to-you is almost as good as brand-new." 

 

Photo courtesy of ThredUp

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-6-november-december/green-biz/ready-re-wear

 

 

 

 

Freedom in 704 Square Feet

January 22, 2014

House Proud By SANDY KEENAN

 

There are more photos of this home at house slideshow.

 

Early in their marriage, Lily Copenagle and Jamie Kennel began crafting a plan for living, scribbling house designs and lists of must-haves on notepads and paper napkins.

The idea was simple. They would create a home that was big enough for the two of them, but small enough so that it would be easy to maintain, environmentally responsible and inexpensive to operate. And that would allow them to free up their time and funds for intellectual and recreational pursuits. Own less, live more: It sounds like a platitude, but it became their strategy.

“We never liked furnishing or cleaning or taking care of things we really didn’t need,” said Ms. Copenagle, 40, who has degrees in physics and cell biology and is associate dean of students at Reed College in Portland, Ore., where her job involves helping students stay, and succeed, in college.

As her husband said, “There’s so much more personal freedom in going smaller.”

Mr. Kennel, 38, is the director of a Portland paramedics program who plans to pursue a doctorate in education or the behavioral sciences, and is particularly interested in how small teams of emergency medical technicians and others work together in a crisis, often in tight quarters. Ms. Copenagle said, “Jamie sees people on the worst day of their life, medically, and I see them at their toughest academic moment.”

The couple married eight years ago, after they had been dating for a year, in a characteristically small ceremony — it was just the two of them — while on vacation in Nicaragua. Once they returned to Portland, they gave a party so friends and family wouldn’t disown them. And soon after, they began making lists.

Mr. Kennel, who is 6-foot-1, wanted a place that did not have the cramped rooms and low-slung doorways of the older houses they had been living in, so he wouldn’t have to remember to duck his head whenever he walked through a door.

Ms. Copenagle wanted a space that was small enough to vacuum completely in five minutes, within cord’s reach of a single outlet, so there wouldn’t have to be any unplugging and replugging of the vacuum cleaner.

And stairs were out of the question because Sirena, one of their beloved rescue dogs, is 14 and fragile; they also realized that as young and agile as they are now, they might be in a similar situation one day.

After they had settled on a neighborhood in the northern part of the city, they bought a decrepit 1950s house on a deep lot for $190,000 and tore it down, being careful to donate or repurpose anything reusable. What they threw away filled just one Dumpster.

 

There are more photos of this home at house slideshow.

 

Their neighbors were concerned about what might rise in place of the old home: a McMansion, multiple townhouses or some other hideous anomaly among the area’s modest bungalows. No one imagined that the couple would put up a tidy little house of barely more than 700 square feet — 704, to be exact — that had a vaulted green roof planted with native flora and a friendly 1960s vibe.

“My mother likes to joke that we took a perfectly good two-bedroom house and put up a room,” Ms. Copenagle said.

Mr. Kennel’s family could not fathom it either, he said: “It doesn’t fit their societal picture of success, generally. We’re doing well, so why aren’t we demonstrating that through our house?”

Even the architects they interviewed had balked at the idea, Ms. Copenagle said. “They kept telling us, ‘You really don’t want this.’ ”

After all, while living small has its share of vocal advocates, it is still underrepresented in the American housing market. In 2012, the average home built in the United States was roughly 2,500 square feet.

But this wasn’t about status or money.

“We can certainly afford a bigger place with a higher price tag,” Ms. Copenagle said. “We just don’t want it.”

So they persevered, commissioning blueprints for a design they came up with themselves, filing for permits and hiring a general contractor. Eventually, though, “it dawned on us that we were on site all the time,” Ms. Copenagle said. “And our general contractor was never here.”

Once the framing was complete, they decided to get rid of the contractor and finish most of the work themselves. It was another way to save money — and besides, “we enjoyed doing the construction work,” Ms. Copenagle said.

In all, the house, which was completed in 2012, cost about $135,000 to build, including materials and labor. (Their own labor, which isn’t part of that figure, they valued at $50,000.) Next time, they said, they will forgo general contractors, architects and real estate agents, which added another $18,000 at the outset.

Those costs were offset by grants of roughly $9,000 that the city awarded them for the green roof, and they get a break on their water bill for managing and reusing storm water with permeable pavers, a rain garden and a 550-gallon rain barrel.

The landscaping also softens the industrial feeling of the exterior and entices passers-by to stop and ring the doorbell, asking questions or offering opinions. The residents do not seem to mind. They are delighted with the way the indoor and outdoor spaces flow together, creating the impression of a more expansive home. And they are proud of their house’s performance in the energy-savings department.

None of this has gone unnoticed by the neighbors. Kim Conrow, 65, who lives next door, marveled: “On weekends, they actually go places and do things. They’re not tied to the projects most of us are tied to. I’m so charmed by the simplicity of it.”

Ms. Conrow admitted, however, that she would never be able to share a closet with her husband the way her neighbors do.

Still, the benefits of that arrangement speak for themselves. In nine months, the mortgage will be paid in full, which will leave Ms. Copenagle and Mr. Kennel with monthly costs of roughly $370 for property taxes, utilities, municipal services and insurance.

That’s good, because they will soon have to pay tuition for Mr. Kennel’s next degree. And Ms. Copenagle has bought a sleeker kayak so she can keep up with her husband as he paddles his stand-up board on the local rivers. Recently, they also bought 20 acres in northeastern Washington, completely off the grid, with incredible views of the Cascade Mountains.

The scribbling on napkins has begun again. This time, the goal is 400 square feet.

 

Correction: January 30, 2014

An article last Thursday about a couple’s 704-square-foot home referred incorrectly to the organisms found on the roof. They are plants, which makes them flora, not fauna.

 

Read more at Original Article

 

 

 

 

Why living small means living happily ever after

Here are just 4 simple reasons you should consider downsizing.

By: yerdle

Fri, Feb 22, 2013

 

Other countries have embraced small house living. Why can't we? (Photo: St. Nick/Shutterstock)

 

Living small is a creative lifestyle that can work anywhere. It's about finding what makes you happy, and focusing on that without the distractions of too much stuff and too much room. You don't have to build your own quirky tiny house or buy expensive multipurpose furniture to live happy in little spaces either!

 

Newly built apartments are getting smaller; the U.S. national average is now 982 square feet (a kingdom in Manhattan!), down from more than 1,000 square feet a decade ago. This is thanks in part to the micro-unit trend — apartments 300 square feet or even smaller — that has popped up in some cities in response to urgent housing needs. 

 

If you're still not convinced, here are four more reasons to live small in this big world.

 

1. Location, location, location

Rent is going up across the U.S., and housing prices are slowly creeping up from their lows after the financial crisis. But why sweat it? Swapping extra room for the perfect neighborhood, close to everything you want, is easier on your wallet and might encourage you to get outside and enjoy your community more often. If you love where you live, your community becomes your living room.

 

2. Small living, smaller footprint

About 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. are caused by home energy use. Then there's all the stuff to fill every room with furniture, closets to fill with new clothes, big fridges to fill with food, half of which goes bad before you get to it ... The more you have, the more you throw in the landfill. Living small helps you buy only the stuff you really need or just have to have, but it's not about depriving yourself, it's about saving money and loving what you've got. 

 

3. It's all the rage in Europe

Newly built homes in the U.S. are more than two and a half times bigger than U.K. homes on average, and more than 500 square feet bigger than any other European country's average. So they also use less energy, buy less, and according to the Happy Planet Index, enjoy life more while using less of the Earth's resources than Americans. Luckily, you don't have to be Roman to do as the Romans do.

 

4. Have not, clean not

It might seem trivial, but add up all the hours you spend cleaning your house, and then cut them in half. Feel better? According to the American Time Use Survey (2011), the average person spent more than four hours just cleaning house every week, not counting cooking, pets, garden work, the week's shopping or repairs around the house. Suddenly, sacrificing a few square feet doesn't feel like you're giving much up but wasted time and money.

 

Related on MNN: 

• The 7 stones of simpler living
• Every inch counts: Architect downsizes to 78 square feet of space

 

Kasia Mychajlowycz, who wrote this for the sharing site Yerdle, is a freelance writer from Toronto who loves walking through cities, finding the best coffee and living in her cozy 300-square-foot apartment.

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/stories/why-living-small-means-living-happily-ever-after#ixzz3EhkaBmre

 

 

 

 

Renting beats owning when it comes to stuff

Something to think about before you make that next purchase – how much will you use it and can you just rent it for a short time and be done with it?

From cars to kids' toys, renting is a way to minimize personal possessions and achieve peace of mind.

By: Networx.com

September 23, 2014

 

Renting limited-use items like pressure washers can save you space in your home and

money in your checking account. (Photo: nanD_Phanuwat/Shutterstock)

"The more you have the more you want" may be a truism but like most truisms, this simple sentence contains a grain of…well…truth. America has long been known as a consumer society, where the hallmark of an individual's status has tended to be how much they own and what they are worth in financial terms. Since the economic downturn early in this century, though, people have been learning to tighten their belts and make do with less. Part of that process involves giving up traditional American consumerism and instead of buying more and more consumer goods, renting what they need when they need it. Would that work for you?

 

What you can rent

Nowadays you can temporarily "own" a huge assortment of material objects. Entertainment-related products have long been at the forefront of the rental market -- just look at the success of Netflix, for example. In recent years, tools to rent have turned into a hot ticket, especially when it comes to costly, infrequently used items such as pressure washers or power augers. Another fast growing rental field is fashion. Designer gowns, elegant tuxedos, or precious jewelry can be had for a single gala event, allowing you to attend in style without blowing your budget on something you'll wear only once.

 

Toy rental has also become quite successful, due, most likely, to children's' boundless thirst for novelty. (You have to wonder how the leasing firms deal with the inevitable wear and tear, though.) Renting a vehicle is nothing new, but now the field has updated to offer such in-demand services as the possibility to lease a car for just a few hours or to hire a bicycle from a roadside stand, dropping it off at another point along your journey.

 

What you gain from renting

Traditionally, folks have rented when it worked out cheaper than buying. Today's reasons are much more varied. Renting, especially locally, tends to be more eco-friendly compared to purchasing. It also frees up space in your home that would otherwise be used for storage. (And you know you're in trouble if you have to park outside year round because you've got so much stuff that you can't close your garage door -- this works only in mild climates, by the way.) As zero-dimensional living becomes an increasingly greater part of our lives thanks to the Internet, decluttering and minimization of material possessions are associated with peace of mind. On a more prosaic level, renting offers you the opportunity to try before you buy. You'll have access to the latest and best models and can select from a huge range of consumer goods.

 

What you lose

Of course, there are some sacrifices to be made. Renting means that you will lose out on the convenience of having a jigsaw, say, right there when you want it. Consider how often you'll actually use a tool or other object before deciding whether to invest.

 

If you hire evening wear, you may worry about staining or tearing the garment, or not getting it back to the rental company within the specified time frame. There can be health concerns connected to renting items like beds or other upholstered furniture, especially with the recent bedbug epidemic. Last but not least, rental deprives you of the pleasure of ownership. Tangible possessions can represent wealth, status, and security. What's more, they may have a value beyond the material; just think of the emotional satisfaction of a woman who's saved her (bought, not rented) wedding dress and passes it down for her daughter to use a generation later.

 

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/stories/renting-beats-owning-when-it-comes-to-stuff#ixzz3EG1ViQfA

 

 

 

 

Goodbye to cars: Why we should take a good look at Finland's phone-based mobility system

 

Helsinki is experimenting with a plan to match people with rides, making cars unnecessary.

September 15, 2014

Jim Motavalli – New York Times contributor blogs about cars and other interesting ways of getting around.

 

Like all European capitals, Helsinki is streetcar-friendly, but its new smart plan could improve routes and empower cellphone-wielding travelers. (Photo: Claudio.Ar/flickr)

Our mobility future may end up looking something like what they’re working on in transit-friendly Finland, which imagines it can retire the private car in a decade. Even more, it plans a radical transformation of its public transit system that could make traditional light rail and bus systems obsolete.

 

I was in Helsinki in 2010, and it seemed as auto-centric as any other European capital (meaning, lots of cars but much more centered on biking and transit). But the concept of ride sharing, and innovators like Uber and Lyft, obviously hit hard in Finland. The Finns practically invented the cellphone with Nokia, and I remember it seeming unusual that average folks used them for practically everything four years ago.

 

Helsinki's Central Railroad Station: A hub for future mobility. (Photo: Claudio.Ar/flickr)

That use should ratchet up when Helsinki introduces, beginning with a pilot next year, a mobility-on-demand system that functions like city-wide car sharing. All you do, using the app on your phone, is say where you’re starting from and where you want to go, and your trip on appropriate transport is arranged and billed. What’s more, says Helsinki Times, the system should be smart enough to know it’s going to rain, and so route you into a bus rather than a city bike. If it makes sense for the traveler to use several different modes (including a shared car), that can be arranged, too.

 

Set up properly, the system should be able to bill by the mile, or allow subscribers to buy a monthly unlimited-mileage package. This totally fits with a new generation that is both wedded to their cellphones and somewhat phobic of car ownership. That’s why car sharing is so popular, and spreading everywhere.

 

It gets cold in Helsinki, but the trains keep running. (Photo: Niklas Sjoblom/flickr)

Helsinki’s public Katsuplus minibus system, which allows people to connect with rides on their phones (like senior-oriented paratransit in the U.S.), is already up and running. It’s ultra-cool: Summon the computer-controlled nine-passenger bus to a local stop, and the system chooses the most direct route. If you opt to ride with other passengers, you pay only for the time you’re alone in the bus. The fare is higher than a traditional bus (but lower than a taxi), and you can say goodbye to having to make multiple bus transfers. 

 

If you think big, you can imagine the whole world embracing this kind of phone-dispatched transit and drastically reducing both buses/trains on fixed routes and the need for everyone to own a private car.

There is a video on the tram system at the end of the article at http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/goodbye-to-cars-why-we-should-take-a-good-look-at-finlands-phone#ixzz3DTh0oNI3

 

 

 

 

Get on board the non-consumption train

Ask yourself the following 13 questions before you continue through that check-out line.

By: Care2.com

Thu, Sep 09, 2010

 

 

I sat down at the keyboard this morning, all set to write up a new post when I found this note that I thought was worth sharing. I’ve had it on my computer for a while and, to be totally honest, have no idea where I found it, so I can’t really give credit where credit is due. My apologies to the original author but I assume that, given the nature in which it was written, they won’t mind me sharing it. As I recall, this was printed on a little card that the owner carried in his/her wallet. Every time they went to make a purchase, they were confronted with these questions — all of which spoke to the underlying wish: I want my money to support the environment, not destroy it.

 

1. Is this purchase something I need?

 

2. Do I already own something that will serve the same purpose?

 

3. Can I borrow one instead of buying new?

 

4. Can I make something that will serve the same purpose?

 

5. Can I buy a used one?

 

6. Would someone be willing to split the cost and share this with me?

 

7. Can I buy or commission one made locally?

 

8. Can I buy one that was made with environmentally responsible materials?

 

9. Can I buy one that serves more than one purpose?

 

10. Can I get something human powered instead of gas or electric?

 

11. Can I compost or recycle it when I’m done with it?

 

12. What is the impact on the environment of the full life cycle of it?

 

13. Does the manufacture or disposal of it damage the environment?

 

I love this because it’s simple, to the point, and a great “thought tree” if you will. I’m actually going to write it up on some used card stock and pop it in my wallet right now.

 

Many of you may feel that it’s a little ridiculous to have to carry something around like this, and indeed it may be. Sort of like having your mom looking over your shoulder shaking her finger at you for something you’re about to do.

 

But consider this: According to Consumer Reports, the average American is exposed to 247 commercial messages every day. If you do a little quick math, that comes out to 7,212,400 commercial messages over an 80-year lifespan. Crazy, isn’t it? Of course, if you don’t watch TV, you’ll cut a lot of those ads out, but even then you’re still bombarded.

 

Look in any magazine, newspaper, Internet site, or on any city street and you’ll see ads everywhere. On billboards, vehicles, T-shirts, and in some instances, even people (don’t try that at home). And what are all these ads telling us? That we will not be happy, healthy, wealthy, wise, popular, or anything else–unless we buy these products.

 

So what do we do? We buy. And every time we buy, we create demand, create waste, consume energy, and invariably, in the long run make ourselves less happy. Sure that iPhone rocks, but only until the new one comes out, and then you’ve got to jump on the train and consume again right?

 

So do I think that carrying around a little piece of paper is really going to change the world? Of course not. But I do believe that in order to start making things better, to clean up this whole waste/consumption mess, we all need to start thinking a little different. And in order to do that, we need to start asking ourselves some hard questions. Why do we feel that buying things will make us happy? What is fundamentally missing that we are trying to fill with mass produced product? Perhaps a little reminder like this will help us start that process and put us on the path to commercial freedom.

 

OK, riff over; I don’t want to do a redux of last week’s post. Write up the little list if you think it’ll help and run through those questions at the store the next time you are about to buy something non-essential. Before you know it, you’ll be steaming along on the non-consumption train and realize it’s really a much better place than you thought it was.

 

Live sustainably.

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/stories/get-on-board-the-non-consumption-train#ixzz3CjEnMIC8